Speaking very generally and broadly, sexual activity outside of marriage can harm individuals, families, children, and society at large. It's the same individual/consent/society argument as doing drugs. Consenting adults can do drugs, and may not cause any harm to anyone - but those drugs are illegal because of the general dangers and collateral harms to others.

True, sexual activity can harm individuals, families, children, society at large. But this is not restricted to sex outside of marriage. What if a husband rapes his wife (has sex with her against her will)?

In addition, thousands of activities MAY harm individuals, families, society: driving a car, for instance: people get killed, families destroyed, global warming, etc. Still, it is not considered immoral to drive a car.

Having sex (whether heterosexual or homosexual) outside of a marriage does not necessarily cause harm to those who engage in it or to others. So there is no need for a general ban or for calling it morally bad in general. Clearly, it depends on the specific case.

It's the same individual/consent/society argument as doing drugs. Consenting adults can do drugs, and may not cause any harm to anyone - but those drugs are illegal because of the general dangers and collateral harms to others.

There's an interesting detail here. You speak about "drugs" and say that they are illegal... but again, it depends. Alcohol and nicotine are drugs with huge "general dangers and collateral harms to others", but they are not illegal. Thousands of families are destroyed because of alcohol each year, thousands are killed by smoking. But, just as in the case of sex outside of marriage, smoking or drinking alcohol is not generally harmful, it depends on the specific case. Sex outside of marriage, whether homosexual or heterosexual, is not necessarily harmful and/or immoral (unless you follow the bible blindly, which you don't anyway, see e.g. working on Sundays, eating pork, etc.).

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)

Understanding the true nature of God is a pretty important issue to many people.

Clearly also a difficult issue for Christians if their god is "one" with Jesus and greater than Jesus at the same time, in the same Gospel. I would think the true nature of god is too complex to understand.

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)

Wasn't it the whiny kid in "Jerry Maguire" that said, "Did you know that the human head weighs 8 lbs?" If that logic carries through on the soul, then the absolute weight would have to be at least....twice that?

The only thing that separates the men from the boys...is the lessons they learn.www.planetmills.com

These are fairly difficult data points to quantify. But from a realistic point of view, I would think that there would be significant variances in both the wight of individual souls and angel circumference. Wouldn't the weight of the soul from a "good" person weigh more than a soul from a "bad" individual?

Comparing Christians to murdering terrorists now. Way to respect other people's beliefs. Typical liberal "open mindedness." I bet you're all for diversity, unless people think differently then you - then they are murdering terrorists.

HA! HA! I don't think in all my 500+ posts I've ever been accused of being liberal. I guess you haven't read any of them. I consider myself to be a moderate with more leanings towards the right. In terms of the Constitution I firmly believe that all humans are created equal and am very consistent with it. I believe that, burning crosses on people's lawns, bans on gay marriage, and affirmative action are equally discriminatory. It just makes me shake my head that people of both parties don't have enough sense to see to me what is so clear and obvious.

I did not mean to compare Christians to murdering terrorists and I was certainly not generalizing all Christians. I meant to compare a subset of Christians who would blindly let their teacher's interpretation of the bible lead them to doing something inherently wrong - and immoral - such as discriminating against certain sects of people, to a certain subset of Muslims (terrorists) who would let their teacher's interpretation of the Koran lead them to also do something inherently wrong such as committing terrorist acts.

If I remember correctly, Jesus' Golden Rule was to treat others as you would have them treat you. From that standpoint you are in conflict with Jesus' own teachings and principles by discriminating against gays and are twisting his message. I believe he would strongly disapprove.

Also, most of your arguments against premarital sex are all too familiar from 12 repetitive years of Catholic school religious teaching but I've never even heard the hardest core of Catholic priests compare permarital sex to the dangers of doing drugs. I am surmising you are alluding to crack or heroin?!? The closest I've come is my girlfriend telling me that I'm so good in bed that she feels high.

But seriously, think about it some more. What is the real difference between marital and pre-marital sex? The difference is a piece of paper that has some legalese crap on it that the Church and govt made you pay for. I have a much better relationship with my girlfriend then most married couples I know. And they are all Christian.

My girlfriend and I are both faithful, love and respect each other. Whereas I've seen the Church give marriage permission to couples I knew had no chance in hell of having a successful marriage. They got married, they cheated, they got divorced. I've seen other married couples who mistreat each other in similar ways physically or pyschologically abusing each other.

Christianity is really trying to say is that it is immoral for two people who do not love each other to have sex. And that only people who love each other should be married. I can think of a few of these bad Christian marriages I know of, and can honestly say that there are gay couples who have more of a right to be married.

HA! HA! I don't think in all my 500+ posts I've ever been accused of being liberal. I guess you haven't read any of them. I consider myself to be a moderate with more leanings towards the right.

OK, you got me there. I guess I am just tired of many liberals (not you ) calling others Nazis or terrorists, simply because they come from a different political viewpoint.

I believe that, burning crosses on people's lawns, bans on gay marriage, and affirmative action are equally discriminatory. It just makes me shake my head that people of both parties don't have enough sense to see to me what is so clear and obvious.

Sorry, I just don't think it's the same thing if someone burns a cross on my lawn vs. society passing a law regulating who can marry.

I did not mean to compare Christians to murdering terrorists and I was certainly not generalizing all Christians.

OK, but I can only determine what you mean by what you write. You wrote: "I can't respect anyone's views if they base it soley off the Bible, especially if they you are using it to discriminate against someone. To me those people are no different than the terrorists who murder innocent people in the name of the Koran."

For being so open minded, Bob, you seem very close-minded about people who base their religious beliefs on the Bible.

If I remember correctly, Jesus' Golden Rule was to treat others as you would have them treat you. From that standpoint you are in conflict with Jesus' own teachings and principles by discriminating against gays and are twisting his message. I believe he would strongly disapprove.

How am I discriminating against gays? By supporting a ban against homosexual marriage? I'm not firing someone who is gay at the workplace. I'm not prohibitting anything that goes on in the bedroom, or in a gay pride parade, or writings, or demonstrations. I'm just a member of the voting public deciding who can marry.

Bob - do you believe a man can have 10 wives if he wants to? What about marrying his sister? Or adult daughter? Or a 17 year old girl with her parents' consent? Or a 14-year old girl? How about six husbands and six wives all intermarried to each other?

Bob, I assume you would agree to regulate some of these forms of marriage. What's the difference between regulating the above examples and gay marriages? It's all just a matter of degree.

But seriously, think about it some more. What is the real difference between marital and pre-marital sex? The difference is a piece of paper that has some legalese crap on it that the Church and govt made you pay for.

No, the difference is a binding covenant made between two people and, for church marriages, God. Such covenant makes the relationship stronger than two people just living together, and helps keep the couple together to support their children and provide a strong, stable family.

Christianity is really trying to say is that it is immoral for two people who do not love each other to have sex.

That's a stretch, and a rationalization. Did your Catholic teachers tell you it was ok to have sex, as long as you were "in love"? I doubt it. And I doubt few people think Christianity stands for such a proposition.

No, the difference is a binding covenant made between two people and, for church marriages, God. Such covenant makes the relationship stronger than two people just living together, and helps keep the couple together to support their children and provide a strong, stable family.

I think you agree with me when I say that the US are (in comparison e.g. to most European countries) conservative and much more religious (church attendance much higher etc.). Why is it then, that the divorce rate is record high in the US (54.8 divorces per 100 marriages, see http://www.divorcereform.org/gul.html)?

If there is an influence of religion on the stability of marriages, it does not seem to be a positive one in the US according to those numbers...

There is something I am not sure about regarding the "gay marriage" discussion in the US. In Switzerland, for heterosexuals there is a civil ("government sponsored") marriage and a "church sponsored" one. You can only marry in church after the civil wedding, and you don't have to have religious wedding after the civil wedding.

In Switzerland homosexuals can form a civil union and obtain rights almost identical to those of a civil marriage, the exceptions being that homosexuals cannot adopt children and that they cannot make use of artificial insemination (in the case of lesbians, because what would a gay man do with a fertilized egg cell? ).

What does "gay marriage" mean in the US?

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)